Frank commentary from a retired call girl

Missing Links

Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. – John Adams

As promised last week, here’s a big collection of links derived from various sources this week. The first few are all examples of our burgeoning police state, courtesy of Radley Balko; in fact, every link down to the chimpanzee video came to me via his Twitter feed.

Only problem with Rand Paul is, for the moment, that he’s playing “team player” with the GOP – but only barely and that will be a temporary affair I think unless they get off their ass and start reforming government – and CUTTING it.

The plain fact of the matter, and what Maggie was referring to with her quote, is that democracy, without limiting its power, is just as, or more susceptible to the mutual plunder that Hobbes referred to as a “War of all against all.” Or the point, falsely attributed to de Tocqueville, but cogent all the same, that,

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury.”

Entitlement spending, whether it is the inter-generational transfer payments of Social Security or the real time transfer payments of corporate welfare and the like, are examples of this nation voting itself largess from the public treasury. Left unchecked and unreversed, it will lead to the dissolution of the Republic.

Are we spending too much on the military. Yup. But you might want to look at problems that are at least 3 times bigger than military spending.

You can also check the Wikipedia page for “2012 United States Federal Budget.”

Numbers will vary – usgovernmentspending dot com lists ‘”24 percent” for DoD but that includes Veterans affairs – which is more of a social welfare program (I am a vet and quite familiar with these programs) – anyway, Dems won’t touch Vet Affairs sooo …

I don’t know where you got that “50%” number – I hear a lot of liberals parrot that number but it’s not grounded in real fact. I really wish liberals were more intellectually curious to check these facts – I’m known to google unbelievable facts when the skipper herself posts them up here and I pretty much trust her research more than my own.

Medicare, Social Security … 40% of the budget according to some estimates.

And yes, I favor cutting the military where it makes sense and I’d be glad to sit on that panel. I think even you would be pleased with how much I could come up with to cut!

Yes, a little more than half of the discretionary budget. Since news reports, lean they left or right, if they lean not at all, are too fucking LAZY to bother being precise, there’s a lot of confusion among the general public about how much of the total budget the military is. To be equally vague (though I think it’s plenty true), I’ll just say “too much.”

Phillip Howard seems to think the gov’s problem is that it can’t get anything done. Au contraire, it gets a lot done. It keeps itself quite busy dismantling our civil and human rights, bit by bit, piece by piece. I’d worry if it could do more.

Oh, and regarding the strip search article. I just love how some commenters actually tried to justify that by bringing up her past arrest record. Yes, because past arrests totally justify stripping a woman nude on the side of the road and taking her tampon out.

I think that the salutary response to these uniformed thugs would be stripping them in public. Then a judicious application of hot tar, chicken feathers and transport on a splintery fence rail might, and I only say might, call attention to their deficiencies in understanding constitutional rights in America.

But Oh well, if a SCrOTUS member like Antonin Scalia doesn’t get it, praising the “New Professionalism” of our dear Thugs In Blue, then maybe we’re expecting too much from our TiB’s. So a little “corporal education” might be called for. You know, to just reinforce the function of their cognitive apparatus.

Such behavior would have been reprehensible even if she were an escaped murderess. But the most telling bit is, cops don’t act that way around really dangerous criminals because they’re afraid of ‘em; they only bully people they are NOT afraid of, which includes women who make “rolling stops”.

Alright, since this is more of general, I’d like to try raise my tone and try to address some of the more foundational issues I have with libertarian thought.

The largest part of US Budget is social security and medicare. Money for these two items are not paid out of general tax renvue but out of the FICA payroll tax. The FICA is a flat tax on all income below 102,000 dollars. Since that means it’s not a normal flat tax and neither Social Security or medicare actually pay out solely because of poverty, the US “welfare state” is more “hardcore” than systems advocated by people whose Libertarian credentials are beyond question.

Beyond those two things, little remains in the budget that libertarians object to on principle, merely of degree. Defense spending may be high, but it’s something libertarians agree on.

And yet, dismantling the already quite modest “entitlement” system is more important than decriminalizing prostitution or other consensual behaviors. It takes up far more focus in Libertarian arguments than other issues.

Finally, Libertarianism is a very broad umbrella term. There are in fact people who call themselves Libertarians who believe that. It is not necessary to defend them or clarify that you do not agree with. However, they are by the nature of how vague the term is, libertarians.

Beyond those two things, little remains in the budget that libertarians object to on principle, merely of degree. Defense spending may be high, but it’s something libertarians agree on.

Well now, I wouldn’t say that…

You have all manner of subsidies (farm subsidies, oil subsidies, etc.) that we could do without, and that adds up to tens of billions a year. There’s quite a lot of military spending we could do without by not trying to police the whole world. And finally, some of the most destructive federal programs don’t actually take up that much in terms of budgets; regulatory agencies whose costs lay more in what they prevent from getting done than what they actually do.

And yet, dismantling the already quite modest “entitlement” system is more important than decriminalizing prostitution or other consensual behaviors. It takes up far more focus in Libertarian arguments than other issues.

That’s because it’s the biggest slice of the pie, by far, and it’s growing and fast. SS and Medicare hasn’t been “paid for” by FICA in, well, ever; it’s true that they’ve been “saving it up”, but they do it by loaning it to themselves to spend on other things. All that’s left is a bunch of IOUs, and they’re beginning to come due and we don’t have nearly enough to pay them off.

That leaves the government with few options, all of which are worrisome to liberty minded folks: raise taxes, by a lot (which won’t work because you chase away economic activity); cut benefits (which is hard for politicians because they prefer buying votes rather than not buying them); or inflate the currency (which makes all those dollars you get from your welfare programs worth less, making it the same as cutting benefits, except then everyone suffers).

Statistically, the wealthiest cohort of the population is also the oldest (since they’ve had plenty of time to get wealthy). SS and Medicare for all is that cohort holding their grandchildren hostage for money at the point of a government gun.

Even tens of billions of dollars is quite small in a nation of 300 million, thus it’s still part of the “little remains”.
Military spending, again Libertarians object to this because of degree, not principle.

Yes it’s the biggest slice of the pie by budget, but not by harm caused. The damage to people’s lives by being thrown in a prison for years for possession of plant matter is greater than the harm done to people’s lives by forcing them to pay taxes to take of old people.

I mean, the long term financial prospects of the state is apparently more important than people’s lives?

I should also say, libertarians are one of the most fractious groups; if you’ve met one libertarian, you’ve met one libertarian. I’ve seen quite a few write about their priorities and ending the Drug War is one of ‘em. You can’t generalize the entire movement off of a limited sample, and from your description I cannot help but think that you are operating on a limited sample.

Ah, I see you didn’t make to my final point I talked about, that I’m simply referring to the Libertarians that do believe in what I was talking about. I can’t generalize about the movement, but I wasn’t.

In general Libertarians have been the most consistent and most persistent opponents to all prohibition laws, including sex work. Libertarians, like any group, have varying degrees of knowledge in Libertarian ideas, and differences in it’s interpretation and of what’s more important. A proportion do indeed get there through objections to social welfare spending and talk about it a lot. So what? Libertarians are human, just as flawed and individual as any other.

How much time did you notice the Occupy Movement spend on opposing sex work prohibition (if any) or drug prohibition? Try bringing up a motion to decriminalise sex work with the Occupy movement, using the argument that these issues are more important, more destructive, than budget spending on corporate welfare or social welfare and see how fast they kick you out, probably whilst calling you anything from a misogynist to a rape supporter, whilst conveniently ignoring their contradiction between a women’s control over her body on abortion versus sex work. Bring up drug decriminalisation and you’ll probably be fine in getting agreement, how much they will focus on it during their protests is another matter. It would be too easy to draw conclusions that Occupy movement members put far more focus on the banksters and corporate welfare than other issues.

How many anti-drug law, anti-war, pro-liberty progressives are going to vote for Obama this year, a man who has carried on America’s military wars, drug wars, war on whores and their clients including government employees some of whom put their life in danger for what they believe in, Obama’s war on liberty, defender of torturers, rather than voting for the anti-war anti-prohibition pro-liberty Libertarian Party? Because y’know, the “modest” 60% of the budget spent on social welfare, it’s not important compared to the piles of dead bodies and prohibition wrecked lives under this and previous administrations of both parties.

Occupy is a movement devoted to one specific goal and comparing them to libertarians is a completely false comparison. They don’t have an ideology.
And why would progressives vote for the Libertarian Party when they could vote for a party that is anti-war, anti-prohibition and pro-liberty that isn’t full of libertarians.
You may be “the most consistent and most persistent opponents to all prohibition laws” but that doesn’t mean you’re the only opponent, or even a very effective opponent.

Your argument was that prohibition laws are more important than budget spending (on welfare) and that you perceive Libertarians to focus on the latter instead of the former “It takes up far more focus in Libertarian arguments than other issues”. If it’s more important for Libertarians then it’s more important for everybody, including the Occupy movement. You can’t have it both ways.

Most soi-disant “progressives” are NOT pro-liberty, because they don’t support economic liberty. Nor are they anti-prohibition, just anti-prohibition of things their leaders say they should be against prohibition of. And that’s not remotely the same thing; by that measure soi-disant “conservatives” are also “pro-liberty” (economic liberty) and “anti-prohibition” (of guns).

That neither “progressives” nor “conservatives” are pro-liberty is a Libertarian point I understand.

I criticize that some libertarians chose to put “economic liberty” first by aligning themselves with “conservatives”.
Like Ron Paul is a big name in Libertarian circles but he’s that “anti-prohibition”.

Right, and some put free speech first by aligning with “liberals”. They’re all different human beings with different priorities, and they have the right to associate with whomever they like to get their message out. That doesn’t change the fact that the basic platforms of both mainstream US parties is toxic and fascist.

You’re actually saying Social Security steals disproportionately from the working poor to give money disproportionately to the idle rich, therefore it’s hardcore right-wing, therefore libertarians should support it?

I’d take the name of a deity in vain at this point to express myself, except, as an atheist, I don’t have any gods to blaspheme.

The Social Security system, since it works off tax on payroll income (and not, for example, investment income, and so only targets the working) that has a regressive structure (thus disproportionately taking from the poor), indisputably takes money disproportionately from the working poor than others, just as you described. So either that characterization isn’t your objection, or you’re failing to notice the implications of what you actually said.

The Social Security system, since it pays out more to people who had high incomes, pays out without regard to accumulated assets, and pays out to retirees (that is, the idle), certainly gives money disproportionately to the idle rich. You may well be objecting to that characterization, but that would indicate you’re refusing to face how Social Security actually works.

You certainly said you thought it was “hardcore”, which you explained as meaning “economically conservative”. So that characterization can’t be your objection.

That leaves you objecting to my characterizing your argument as claiming that “libertarians should support [Social Security]”. I grant that’s an exaggeration. You merely think that libertarians shouldn’t ever conclude that it’s better to gain influence by aligning with the lobe of the system willing to at least contemplate major change to a program of robbing the poor to give to the rich, and should instead either align with the supporters of Social Security or refuse to ever attempt to gain a position of influence.

My point is that Social Security is more economically conservative than many libertarian advocates have suggested, such as the negative tax system.

And that libertarian choose to put that first, despite the fact that conservatives are just as inflexible on social issues as liberals on economics, yet the US has far more “economic liberty” than social freedom, which libertarians hold to be equal.

The problem is your premises are wrong. The elements of Social Security you point out as being “economically conservative”, first, aren’t actually economically conservative (they’re merely polarity-reversed progressive economics, which is not remotely the same thing), and, second, make Social Security even more repulsive to most libertarians than an actually progressive system would be.

And yet, dismantling the already quite modest “entitlement” system is more important than decriminalizing prostitution or other consensual behaviors.

Again – you cherry pick which parts of the building you wish to look at. You look at Social Security … pronounce it pretty “hardcore” and then go on to announce that somehow, based on that – the whole entitlement system is “modest”.

You did not look at …

– Medicare or Medicare Part D (Medicare Part D being the pipe dream of Republicans.

– Obamacare

– Federal Welfare

– Federal Flood Insurance

– FEMA Emergency Entitlements to cover natural disasters

And you did not talk about this when you mentioned Social Security …

So, if you are right … and our entitlement system is “modest” – then … it really doesn’t matter because …

By hardcore I meant “economically conservative” , further in fact, than Milton Friedman’s ideas. Modest, meant that it by his standards it did not go far enough.
Both Medicare and Obamacare are related to health care, which is not the same part of the building I was looking at. How is cherry picking to only criticize one part of something at a time?
None of the other three are especially large portions of the government’s budget, and I’m not really sure why Flood Insurance and FEMA are even there.

If you read the comments on that human trafficking case, the 37% figure is dissected like Dr. Cornelius on a clever Human.

I’m glad somebody has decided that the solution to global warming isn’t wealth redistribution, because the fear that it is constitutes the entire reason so-called conservatives refuse to believe in it. Well, that and a general distrust of science (frikkin’ Darwin!).

Maggie on Twitter

Boring but necessary legal stuff

All original content on this website (i.e. all of my columns, pages and anything else which I write myself) is protected under international copyright law as of the time it is posted; though you may link to it as you please or quote passages (as long as you attribute the quote to me), please do not reproduce whole columns without my express written permission. In other words, you have to say "pretty please with sugar on top" first, and then wait for me to say "okey-dokey".